Just a thought: don’t you wish Al Gore would have fought as hard as Hillary is?
In 2000 many people believed there were few real policy differences between Gore and Bush. In 2008, that’s the same “serious” view, even though followers of both Obama and Clinton point out differences. Of course Bush won because more people wanted to have a beer with him, and because James Baker mopped the floor with the hung-out-to-dry detritus of the Gore campaign that was left behind.
Of course, I believe that while there are few minor policy differences here and there, it was Hillary’s post-post-post-Feminist vote in 2002 for the AUMF that cost her the election. The fact that enough people made that a priority to shit on their fond memories of the 90s for someone who really has no record is significant. And that was a huge difference.
Those ex-Hillary supporters like me who have long since accepted Obama’s victory are also weary of her campaign (though, again, granting I wish Gore had fought this hard) must admit that it was thta AUMF vote that has created the relatively thin margin between the two. Sure, a bunch of things could have gone different, just like Gore. No Nader/No Mark Penn. No spurious Buchanan votes/No independents in Dem primaries. But all of those stand in stark relief to the most important causes: the Supreme Court in 2000 and the AUMF in 2008.